Over the past twenty years, “globalization” has become a buzzword positioned at the center stage of international relations, primarily due to the creation and diffusion of modern and innovative technologies that have accelerated the exchange of knowledge, trade and capital around the world. And although many people attribute the beginning of globalization to a relatively recent event brought about by the advent of technologies developed in the last two decades (such as the Internet), others attribute the significance of globalization to 1492 and 1498 with the sighting of the New World by part of Colombo. World and Vasco de Gama's discovery of the sea route stretching from Portugal to India respectively. However, according to O'Rourke and Williamson, there is plenty of evidence to show that globalization, as we know it today, truly began in the "long" 19th century, when the world saw unprecedented progress in international economic integration thanks to innovations key in the sector. political institutions of the time and, most importantly, enormous technological advances during this period. Consequently, it stands to reason that the 19th century was one of countless “firsts”: it was during this period that our world saw the creation of the first global NGO (ICRC) and regulatory agency (International Telegraph Union Foundation); the first cross-border phone call (between London and Paris); the publication of the first international novel (Around the World in Eighty Days); the first Olympic Games; and the first international award (Nobel Prize) to recognize achievements in a wide range of fields. It was also during this period that the effects of the Industrial Revolution increased inter-regional trade flows at a rate never seen before and, as a result of the astonishing international division of labor, the world was divided into “North” and “South”. ” which we still mistakenly refer to today. What many scholars have called the first “golden age of globalization” can be better understood by exploring the political and technological data of its time; By analyzing the relevant foundations that marked the transformation of the international order during the 19th century, this article will shed light on the impressive progress achieved in international economic integration during that era. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe international economy of the 19th century, referred to in this article, will typically include the period between the end of French rule and the Napoleonic Wars, from 1815, to the start of World War I, 1914. This period is remembered politically as the Pax Brittanica, a period of relative peace between Europe and the rest of the world in which Britain found itself in the right climate to become the dominant global power; it was inaugurated by the important Congress of Vienna. To better understand 19th century globalization, it is important to analyze how, before the Pax Brittanica, the French and Napoleonic wars of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, marked by a series of blockades and embargoes, had a decidedly disruptive on the world economy. trade within and outside Europe. The restrictive measures prescribed following the wars had penetrating effects on prices, trade volume and economic policy, encouraging and promoting import substitution practices. stimulated. O'Rourke argues that these wars had both negative and positive effects on 19th century globalization and sets out to answer the important question: would Britainadopted free trade policies much earlier if the French and Napoleonic wars had not followed? Some scholars support this position by arguing that industrialization occurred at a slower pace due to the vast debt issues used to finance the French wars; in other words, they reason that, in the absence of war, industrialization would have progressed more rapidly. According to O'Rourke, although it is virtually impossible to offer concrete answers to the above question, there are insinuations that the French wars postponed the liberalization of free trade in Britain. One such insinuation can be revealed with the ratification of the Treaty of Eden in 1786, which marked the end of a key phase of trade relations between France and Britain and gave rise to a more liberal economic vision that would replace mercantilist policies. However, escalating tensions between Britain and France in the early 1790s, with the latter claiming to have been awarded the short end of the agreement, led to French denunciation of the treaty shortly before war broke out . Furthermore, because the blockades that came with Britain's wars had heavy distributional effects, in France and elsewhere, protectionist pressure groups successfully mobilized in Northern Hemisphere countries. Interestingly, while the example of the Treaty of Eden can be used to argue that the French and Napoleonic Wars did indeed dramatically delay the liberalization of free trade in Britain, some scholars provide the counterargument that Britain's defeat of the French in wars was a necessary requirement for the vast liberalization of Europe in the 19th century. The wars, seeing the end of numerous mercantilist restrictions linked to European colonialism, catalyzed several geopolitical transformations that, according to O'Rourke, would help accelerate 19th-century globalization. In some cases, the newfound independence of the Iberian colonies in the Americas translated directly into increased exports of British manufactured goods to Latin America as mercantilist constraints on trade with such colonies now fell away. Likewise, the wars had a negative impact on the Dutch; after losing ground in the late 1790s, the Dutch East India Company was suspended, and in 1806 the Dutch government made a historic move to authorize free trade with Asia. In practice and as a result of the war, trade in Europe was quite unstable at that time, however, Southeast Asian exports flourished after the end of the VOC monopoly, strengthening the claim that VOC controls were a cause of the decline of Southeast Asia in the mid-17th century. century (O'Rourke). To understand the uniqueness of international economic integration in the 19th century, it is helpful to examine data on price gaps. According to O'Rourke, there is no concrete evidence of intercontinental price convergence before the 19th century. He uses data on price gaps between Amsterdam and Southeast Asia for three products (cloves, coffee, and black pepper) to demonstrate that from the mid-17th to the mid-18th century price convergence was non-existent or negligible; however, from the second half of the 18th century until the 19th century, price convergence was decidedly extensive. Indeed, the convergence of prices in the second half of the 19th century can be explained by the decrease in transport costs and this will be discussed in more detail later. However, the price convergences that began in the second half of the 18th century can paint a picture of how the effects of.